Displaying 5 results from an estimated 5 matches for "postmorterm".
Did you mean:
postmortem
2018 Nov 30
5
[PATCH RFC 00/15] Zero ****s, hugload of hugs <3
...(and based on somewhat disturbed feedback from
> other maintainers) I can only make the conclusion that nobody knows what
> the responsibility part here means.
>
> I would interpret, if I read it like at lawyer at least, that even for
> existing code you would need to do the changes postmorterm.
>
> Is this wrong interpretation? Should I conclude that I made a mistake
> by reading the CoC and trying to understand what it *actually* says?
> After this discussion, I can say that I understand it less than before.
Have you read Documentation/process/code-of-conduct-interpretati...
2018 Nov 30
3
[PATCH RFC 00/15] Zero ****s, hugload of hugs <3
On Fri, 2018-11-30 at 13:44 -0800, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 30, 2018 at 01:01:02PM -0800, James Bottomley wrote:
> > No because use of what some people consider to be bad language
> > isn't necessarily abusive, offensive or degrading. Our most
> > heavily censored medium is TV and "fuck" is now considered
> > acceptable in certain contexts on
2018 Nov 30
0
[PATCH RFC 00/15] Zero ****s, hugload of hugs <3
...As a maintainer myself (and based on somewhat disturbed feedback from
other maintainers) I can only make the conclusion that nobody knows what
the responsibility part here means.
I would interpret, if I read it like at lawyer at least, that even for
existing code you would need to do the changes postmorterm.
Is this wrong interpretation? Should I conclude that I made a mistake
by reading the CoC and trying to understand what it *actually* says?
After this discussion, I can say that I understand it less than before.
/Jarkko
2018 Nov 30
0
[PATCH RFC 00/15] Zero ****s, hugload of hugs <3
...sturbed feedback from
> > other maintainers) I can only make the conclusion that nobody knows what
> > the responsibility part here means.
> >
> > I would interpret, if I read it like at lawyer at least, that even for
> > existing code you would need to do the changes postmorterm.
> >
> > Is this wrong interpretation? Should I conclude that I made a mistake
> > by reading the CoC and trying to understand what it *actually* says?
> > After this discussion, I can say that I understand it less than before.
>
> Have you read Documentation/proces...
2018 Dec 01
0
[PATCH RFC 00/15] Zero ****s, hugload of hugs <3
...isturbed feedback from
> > other maintainers) I can only make the conclusion that nobody knows what
> > the responsibility part here means.
> >
> > I would interpret, if I read it like at lawyer at least, that even for
> > existing code you would need to do the changes postmorterm.
> >
> > Is this wrong interpretation? Should I conclude that I made a mistake
> > by reading the CoC and trying to understand what it *actually* says?
> > After this discussion, I can say that I understand it less than before.
>
> Have you read Documentation/process/...